Talk:Ian Thorpe and drug testing

Move

Object - People say the article on Ian Thorpe, is too big, which is why I am doing this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Is there a more specific title name possible for this article? Like Ian Thorpe Doping Allegations or Ian Thorpe Performance Enhancing Contraversy just some ideas. Fcsuper 06:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I kept it general, since Thorpe was also a famous campaigner against drugs, which is why I didn't use the word allegations. In addition, allegations may also hint at guilt, and since there are many facets to this, ambiguity may be better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree with the title for what it is attempting to cover. That said, however, I don't think it should exist: it strikes me as a profound case of 'recentism'. Why not just rewrite in précis for the main article?--cj | talk 06:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hate destroying info, since I spent about 100 hours on creating this FA when I was not so efficient, and people are wanting to scupper the FA and demote it, citing the length for one thing. Of course, a better way could be done. I'll see if I can shift the main detail of the race reports to the sport pages and if so, probably, moved the drug thing back. As for recentism it is, and I think the best way is to cover historical events in more detail. I have done a few things like this recently (1955 South Vietnamese election, 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt, 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing, 1964 Brinks Hotel bombing, January 1964 South Vietnamese coup), but I note that I think you have been involved in editing articles on recent Australian political kerfuffles as well...at the risk of sounding like a prick. In any case, I'd say pop cruft is the place to target. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we archive it for now on a user page, and then if the importanced of this matter is determined over time, re-add it as a wikipedia article? Fcsuper 05:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is needed as a fork for the purposes of an FA. It is also going to be expanded, now that it is a separate article and unconstrained. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So what was the actual levels?

You will notice Thorpe has not come out and said the level was x in comparison to the medical accepted limit, must be because it would not help his im inniocent stand.

The "No proof" of drug taking is the same as some guy with 100,000's of dollars hidden under the bed. You cant prove its from somthing illegal, but its very susspicious and reason will tell you the truth!--203.192.92.73 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In the press conference the head of Asada held he mentions some exact figures. [1] --SAS87 16:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography missing

I see "Hunter" with a page number, but what is Hunter? Tony (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Doping

Thorpe has never tested positive to doping so why does this article exist? It seems as though its based on media speculation and suspicion. Michael Phelps and Ye Shiwen have also been accused of doping, but they dont have articles for it. Portillo (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Misleading

I think the lead is misleading. It doesn't state clearly that there has been no formal findings of doping. It also doesn't state that Thorpe's criticism of the testing has been that it was inadequate. It leaves ambiguity to if he ever was found to have done any and why he criticized the tests. It also leaves out that he has been vocally against drug use.